Upon this rock

In today's Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan analyzes the sexual abuse scandal that plagues the Roman Catholic Church. In my opinion, any institution that places men in authority over the vulnerable will incubate abuse. Whether it's a church, the Boy Scouts, Yearning for Zion, a school, or some other surrogate family, predators are drawn to opportunity. That is why Christ denied his apostles human authority over men in Matthew 23:8-12. They could serve, but they could not rule. The church is to be different than the world; it should not appeal to predators.

Within her commentary, Noonan quotes or rather misquotes Matthew 16:18, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." There are two common misinterpretations of this verse and Noonan falls for both of them. The first false assumption is that Jesus promised to build his church upon Peter. In the Greek, Peter is petros, or stone. It is masculine case. The rock upon which Jesus promised to build his church is petra, feminine case. The difference is the difference between a pebble and Ayres Rock. The immovable stone upon which Christ would build his church was not Peter; it was something else in the context. This is a case of a mistaken antecedent exacerbated by the inadequacies of translation. Let's digress . . .

For what was Jesus praising Peter in this passage? "Blessed are you Simon Bar Jonah; for flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my father, the one in heaven." Matthew 16:17 (AB) What was it that the Father in heaven revealed to Peter? Peter's confession, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God." Matthew 16:15 (AB) Herein we find our immovable stone, the Father's revelation of the son! and the confession of life-changing faith! Peter's confesses that which all believers must consent, "[Jesus is] the Christ, the son of the living God." Likewise, 1 Corinthians 3:11 tells us there is no other foundation than Christ.

Noonan further misunderstands Jesus' next statement, ". . . and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." There is no semantic justification to presume this means the inevitable success of a human institution. Hades, often translated hell in English, was distinctly different than Gehenna, the place of final judgment. Hades was the place of the dead. To say that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the church was an allusion to Greek mythology in which the gates of Hades were guarded by Cerberus, a three-headed dog. Cerberus prevented the dead from exiting the gates of Hades.

When Jesus said that "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against [his church]," he was not promising the survival of an institution, but rather the resurrection of the dead to those who believe. This promise is not institutional, it is personal. It is the hope of eternal life for all who believe.

Hitherto shalt thou come

I stumbled upon a speech by President Lyndon Baines Johnson which he delivered at the escalation of the Vietnam War. He asked, "Why must this Nation hazard its ease, and its interest, and its power for the sake of a people so far away?" His answer? US soldiers would fight and die in Vietnam because Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy had committed the US to support the government of South Vietnam. Moreover, Johnson declared, "I intend to keep that promise." His commitment was based upon a moral principle. We as a nation had vowed an oath. "To dishonor that pledge, to abandon this small and brave nation to its enemies, and to the terror that must follow, would be an unforgivable wrong." He elaborated,

We are also there because there are great stakes in the balance. Let no one think for a moment that retreat from Viet-Nam would bring an end to conflict. The battle would be renewed in one country and then another. The central lesson of our time is that the appetite of aggression is never satisfied. To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next. We must say in Southeast Asia--as we did in Europe--in the words of the Bible: "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further."

Johnson quotes God's discourse in the Book of Job, Chapter 38. God asked Job whether Job had commanded the oceans, saying, "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?" Job 38:11 (KJV)

Perhaps Johnson overreached when he compared his resolve to stop totalitarianism with God's command of nature.

Although Johnson promised, "We will not withdraw, either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement," the Nixon administration did exactly that, and the war in Vietnam ended badly. The Killing Fields of Cambodia followed with millions paying the price of America's capitulation.

Today America's enemy knows we lack resolve. The question they ask is not whether we lack resolve, but how long before we grow tired of war. Iraqis are dying en masse again because US troops have withdrawn from the cities. US leadership equivocates regarding Afghanistan telegraphing the Taliban that they have indeed won; it is only a matter of time. Iran, North Korea, and even Venezuela beat drums of war while America talks compromise. America lacks resolve to finish the fight. We lack the resolve to deal more brutally against our enemy than they deal with us. We ignore Johnson's warning, "To withdraw from one battlefield means only to prepare for the next." Perhaps there is wisdom in our cynicism. In Johnson's words,

We often say how impressive power is. But I do not find it impressive at all. The guns and the bombs, the rockets and the warships, are all symbols of human failure. They are necessary symbols. They protect what we cherish. But they are witness to human folly.

Perhaps we no longer believe, as Johnson did, that righteous wars will someday end war. Instead we see war after war on the horizon and we, like the French in Indochina, prefer capitulation to conflict. C'est la vie. Perhaps we realize, unlike Johnson, that victory will not end conflict. Consequently, we choose life above sacrifice, and assuage our moral conscience with SSRI's. How we feel about life, rather than what we do in life, becomes our standard of our self-examination.

In the 1960's, President Johnson tried to entrench against a wave of aggression in the world. His successor capitulated hoping for the praise of the people. Instead Nixon resigned in disgrace after abusing the power of the Presidency. Today America faces enemies in other parts of the globe. Nevertheless, American leadership has failed to grasp that you cannot foster freedom abroad while infringing on freedom at home. America's enemy is totalitarianism; however; we fight and eventually capitulate to external enemies while condoning the decay of freedom within our borders. If we must fight foreign wars, we should fight for stability, not freedom. Perhaps we should instead defend freedom at home with the same zeal with which we try to impose it elsewhere.

---

The church today is engaged in war. The dramatic cultural changes of the last century challenge the church to respond. Some churches have endorsed a Christ-less Christianity. A few months ago we visited a church in a city where we used to live. In the entire service, the name of Jesus was mentioned once and then only in an empty context. The songs and the sermon were ambiguous. The production quality was somewhat better than we remembered, but the content was void of Gospel truth. I suppose the church leadership would take this criticism as a compliment because this was the direction toward which they had chosen to go. Before we moved away, they expressed determination to do anything to make church attractive to the culture. Returning, I could see nothing distinguishing them from the culture.

Some church denominations are entrenching, confronting cultural change at the front door, saying, "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further." Yet the congregations lack the resolve to remain traditional. The liturgies of old seem empty and irrelevant. Reaching out to a specific demographic succumbs to pandering to a demographic. The effectiveness of church is judged based on how it makes people feel rather than its faithfulness to the Truth and the Light. Cultural morass creeps in disguised as youth programs and activities. The question of surrendering to the culture is not "whether" but "when." We fight a war of attrition to slow what we perceive as decay within the traditional church. We fail to see that the battle is not beginning, but rather this battle has continued from the beginning.

Jesus warned the Galileans, saying, "From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and violent men take it by force." Matthew 11:12 (NASB) Jesus warned that violent men use religion to increase their own power and influence. This is not a new concept. Jesus referred to John the Baptist's ministry. John the Baptist had rebuked the Pharisees and Sadducees who came to be baptized by him, saying, "You brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Therefore bear fruit in keeping with repentance." Matthew 3:7-8 (NASB) The Pharisees and Sadducees would submit to John's baptism if it meant that they could remain relevant. Paul warned Timothy that the battle would continue.

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. But you, be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

1 Timothy 4:1-5 (NASB)

The real battle lines are not drawn then between traditionalism and modernism, but rather the battle lines are drawn between truth and deception. To the extent that the emergent church and the traditional church both promote church above Christ, they are merely opposite sides of the same coin. They both seek power and influence at the expense of their congregants. The congregations seek leaders who tell them what they want to hear. Both define church as something that Paul never described 1 Corinthians 14.

In Gary Hamel's Management 2.0 blog, "Organized Religion's 'Management Problem'", he writes, "Back in the first century, the Christian church was organic, communal and mostly free of ritual—and it needs to become so again . . ."

To the extent that church models supplant the organism—the body of Christ—with an organization, they misrepresent Christ.

We organize, but we are not organic. We take "Communion", but we are not communal. Whether we rock or recite our liturgies, we ritualize the Christian experience. From a first century perspective we have fallen away. We are the apostate church the New Testament warns against.

The apostate church battles amongst itself regarding methodologies that achieve the same eventual alienation from Christ. The assembly, the body of Christ, is not a place where unbelievers should feel comfortable. We should evangelize, but we should not compromise. Likewise, the assembly, the body of Christ, should not be cold and sterile, ritualistic and intermittent. The early Christians lived together as family because the Apostles taught them to. Do we presume to understand Christianity better than those who walked with Christ?

We have forgotten that only God can say, "Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further." Christian leaders of any variety can no more define church than Job could command the oceans. The Apostle Paul described church very clearly in his letters, especially 1 Corinthians chapter 14. What we feel that church should be has little relevance compared to the Apostle's command, but we drown our guilt with professional performances or perpetual programs.

The choice confronting Christians today is not a choice between traditionalism and modernism. Rather the choice confronting us is, as it has always been, obedience or disobedience. After hearing God's discourse, Job repented in sack cloth and ashes. What will we do?

Alley-oop

by John D Ramsey

Recently, I read a quote from a prominent so-called Christian leader that roughly correlated church programs with the alley-oop. We toss the ball up, and God makes a slam dunk. Without our setup pass God can do nothing, but without God, we’re shooting air balls; together we score. In effect, the church expects God to validate whatever it decides to do.

God does not work that way. In Acts, we are given some illustrations of how God does work, but we evaluate those empirically and decide that because we have never seen it, they are no longer relevant.

Right before Jesus’ ascension into heaven, he told his disciples,

• Do not leave Jerusalem
• Wait for the gift my Father promised.

Jesus promised the disciples that they would be baptized by the Holy Spirit, and that when this occurred, they would become Jesus’ witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth. The disciples were expecting God to restore the kingdom to Israel, but Jesus told them that it was not for them to ask about “times or dates the Father has set by his own authority.” Acts 1:7 (NIV)

The disciples stayed in Jerusalem, but they did not wait for the gift of the Holy Spirit. Instead, Peter insisted that they nominate two men to replace Judas Iscariot. After the nomination they tossed them up to see which one was God’s slam dunk. After hearing that the timing of God’s promises were not for them to ask, Peter and the crew decided that the time had come for God to replace Judas. Matthias was chosen by a game of chance, and nothing more was ever heard about Matthias.

No doubt, Matthias was a good man, but he wasn’t God’s man. Peter’s initial logic was sound, but his decisions were all wrong. The Psalmist prophesied of Judas, saying, “May another take his place,” but this was not Peter’s decision, it was God’s. If Peter had followed the pattern of church government that Jesus taught in Matthew 16 and 18, there would have been no need for casting of lots. Jesus prophesied in both of those chapters, “Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will have been loosed in heaven.”

From Matthew 18, it becomes apparent that the binding and loosing that Jesus refers to is the collective decision making of the assembly of believers. Jesus taught his disciples that He reveals His will in the unanimous agreement among the assembly. If only two or three are present, Jesus still makes His will known through their agreement. If you get a whole church to agree together, then that is a miracle, and that is the point Jesus tried to teach his disciples.

Peter and the other disciples apparently could not agree between Barsabbas and Matthias, so they alley-ooped. That is to say, they required God to finish what they had started. Churches today ignore the unanimity requirement for decision making. Decisions are made by approved people behind closed doors. We then expect God to endorse our decisions.

Sometime after Matthias was no longer relevant, the Lord Jesus appeared to Saul of Tarsus (Paul) on the road to Damascus. Such was God’s timing. Paul calls himself the least of the apostles. Yet, as the least of the apostles Paul became the principal writer of the New Testament.

Peter set the criteria that whoever replaced Judas must have been someone who was with Jesus from the beginning. In other words, Peter wanted someone who wanted the job, and someone who had demonstrated to the disciples the necessary commitment. These were not God’s criteria, but rather man’s criteria.

There was nothing on Saul of Tarsus’ résumé that would have appealed to Peter and the gang. Come to think of it there was nothing in Peter’s résumé that qualified him to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, either.

Much of what we call church occurs at the pleasure of men. Leadership is still largely chosen by committee either internal to the local assembly or by leadership of the denomination. Pastors candidate for positions that meet their compensation requirements. People attend the church whose programs please them or whose services entertain them. Congregants, or conscripts, are assigned to roles as it pleases the so-called church leaders. The modern church is entirely designed to please men, and not God. Scripture is distorted every Sunday morning to convince people that they must continue doing what pleases men. We neither wait on God to make His will obvious, nor do we uphold Jesus’ standard of unanimity in our decision making. We operate mostly as an oligarchy doing what pleases the so-called leaders.

We take out church mortgages or sell bonds using the charisma of the pastor as collateral on the loan. Then we ask God to pay off the debt – alley-oop. We justify ourselves by remembering that mortgages and church bonds are about the only way to acquire a building. This should make us ask a rather obvious question!

Churches manage their members in CRM databases grading performance based on growth and retention. Under-performing facilities are upgraded, and under-performing pastors are replaced. We spend our entire church experience trying to please men. We commend the success of an assembly in human terms – how many congregants, how many programs, and how much money.

Once on television, I watched on prominent so-called Christian leader bragging about the church gymnasium that was so grand it persuaded many people to join his church. His bragging was mundane; some churches incorporate sports bars. Is the Gospel of Jesus Christ a giant bait-and-switch? Come for the basketball, and while you’re here, let us punch your ticket to heaven.

Modern churches seek to please men in all things. Yet Paul tells the Galatians, “For now do I comply with men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if still I please men, I was not then Christ’s bondman.” Galatians 1:10 (AB) Likewise, when you look at the salutations on Paul’s epistles, you find phrases such as:

“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a chosen apostle, being separated for the good news of God . . .” Romans 1:1 (AB)

“Paul, a chosen apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God . . .” 1 Corinthians 1:1 (AB)

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, through the will of God . . .” 2 Corinthians 1:1, Ephesians 1:1, Colossians 1:1 (AB)

“Paul, an apostle, not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father . . .” Galatians 1:1 (AB)

“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the command of God, the father, and our deliverer Jesus Christ, the one of our hope . . .” 1 Timothy 1:1 (AB)

“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus through the will of God, according to the promise of life of the one in Christ Jesus . . .” 2 Timothy 1:1 (AB)

Paul did not seek to please men. In fact, he said that if he tried to please men he could not consider himself a bondman of Jesus Christ. He didn’t kowtow to Peter, James, and John, nor did he detract from the Gospel message just to attract more people.

What would church look like we did not seek to please men, but rather we sought only to please God? Would we have gymnasiums and sports bars? Would we have church buildings at all?

What would a church look like if we all met together in a borrowed upper room, studying and praying until God revealed what He wanted to do? What would church look like if we were all more interested in hearing from God, than doing anything. The truth is that the modern church does not exist to please God, but rather to please men.

Ironically, to the extent that we do church to please men, we demonstrate that we are not bondmen of Jesus Christ. Instead, we’re just playing games.

Ecclesiastical hierarchy

by John D Ramsey

And through covetousness
shall they with feigned words
make merchandise of you.

2 Peter 2:3 (KJV)

Did anyone read the AP headline about the former Indiana pastor and his sons who allegedly scammed 11,000 people by securities fraud? Really? The marks thought they could make money by purchasing bonds for church building. Really? Is anyone truly surprised? Don’t say Peter didn’t warn you.

Peter says that because of them, “the way of truth will be blasphemed.” 2 Peter 2:2 (AB) It is maddening that people use positions of respect to manipulate and devour the naive. Peter spends the rest of the chapter describing the severity of God’s judgment against such men. He calls them “slaves of depravity” (NIV), and compares them to a “dog having returned unto its own excrement.” (AB) Most translations soften the object of the preposition saying, instead, “vomit,” like that’s so much better. The Greek is rather direct, however.

The notion of an ecclesiastical hierarchy exacerbates the problem of frauds within Christendom, whether they be shysters or sexual predators. People implicitly trust so-called Christian leaders. In reading my Bible I can find no basis for such obeisance. Peter warned of false prophets and teachers in 2 Peter 2. Paul warned of “grievous wolves” in Acts 20 who would “draw away disciples after them” (AB). John warned the elder Gaius, in 3 John, about Diotrephes, “the one enjoying being first.” In Revelation 2, the Lord Jesus condemns the practices of the Nicolaitans, or “conquerors of the people.”

The Apostle Paul, did teach an ecclesiastical hierarchy. Nevertheless, the hierarchy Paul taught was consistent with the words of Jesus,

But you are not to be called Rabbi,
for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’
for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’
for you have one Teacher, the Christ.

Matthew 23:8-10 (NIV)

Modern churches mostly ignore the concept of equality among the brethren. In so doing, they ignore Paul who scolded the Corinthians for causing divisions within the body. Most translations, especially the NIV, strain to justify the favoritism the Corinthians practiced, but Paul told them that because of their divisions they did not celebrate the Lord’s Supper, but their own. He went on to say that because their practice did not recognize the body of the Lord, many were weak and sick and others had died. The church, the body of Christ, consists of many members, but only Christ is the head.

The concept that Christians should organize in hierarchies is un-Biblical. Paul taught a ecclesiastical hierarchy, but it is rather shallow. He says,

But I want you to know,
that the Christ is the head of every man;
and the head of the woman is the man;
and the head of Christ is God.

1 Corinthians 11:3 (AB)

Modern Christianity largely rejects or ignores Paul’s statement that the “head of the woman is the man.” It’s a free country, and they’re welcome to start their own religion. Nevertheless, what I see within this paragraph is simply this, if Christ, being God, and equal to God, can submit to the Father, then a woman, being equal to the man, can submit to her husband without incurring any inferiority. Women are equal to men, according to Galatians 3:28; their submission is only for the purposes of orderliness. It certainly reflects the character of Christ and the natural divine order designed by God. Moreover, in this ecclesiastical hierarchy every woman is only three from the top which is much higher than organized Christianity puts most anybody.

The simple beauty of this passage is that “the Christ is the head of every man.” No Christian leader stands in any position of ecclesiastical authority over any other man. In fact, Paul takes it further and says, “Every man praying or prophesying having anything on his head, disgraces his own head.” 1 Corinthians 11:4 (AB) Many scholars obfuscate this passage to make it sound like a man must not wear his ball cap at the table while saying grace. Yet clearly, Paul is saying, Christ is your head; do not cover yourselves with any other presumed spiritual authority.

If no man can have ecclesiastical authority over you, then you also have no ecclesiastical authority over him. As Jesus said, “You are all brothers.” 

When any so-called Christian leader touts his credentials, beware. He is deceived and likely a deceiver. The only valuable credentials he can possibly have is that Christ is his head. Those credentials are no more valuable than your own, if you belong to Christ. Even Paul called his vast credentials foolishness in 2 Corinthians 11. He sarcastically tells the Corinthians that he knows they will indulge his foolishness because they “put up with anyone who enslaves [them] or exploits [them] or takes advantage of [them] or pushes himself forward or slaps [them] in the face.” 2 Corinthians 11:20 (NIV)

Although no man holds ecclesiastical rank over another, the truth is always authoritative. That is why Paul preach authoritatively and could also compel Titus saying, “These things speak, and encourage, and reprove with all command! Let no one speculate about you.” Titus 2:15 (AB) Titus did not have all authority, yet the message he delivered was authoritative. Similarly Peter proclaimed, “If any speaks, let it be as oracles of God.” 1 Peter 4:11 (AB) As each of us declares the truth, we should do so with authority.

In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul outlined what a church service should look like. Very briefly, the assembly of believers was designed to be interactive. One speaks, others discern. If one stands up to speak, the one speaking sits down. All things were to be orderly. No one leader emerges, yet all lead as the Holy Spirit directs. Each brings something that builds up the body.

In modern Christianity, we idolize the authors, the orators, and the entertainers. We elevate the credentialed and ordained. In so doing, we ignore the truth that only Christ is our head. We open the doors for the ravenous wolves, those who seek a following for themselves. We enable those who by “feigned words make merchandise of” us. By ignoring our lofty position with respect to Christ, through false humility, we deny him.

Knowing that only Christ is our head should compel us to know him better. As brothers we are told to respect and defer to those who are older—this is the natural order. We are also supposed to submit to one another while avoiding those who love being first.

When we begin to see believers as equals and not superiors or inferiors, and when we begin to see only Christ as our head, then it should become easier to spot those who assert themselves or attract fan clubs for themselves. These are certainly not believers, because by elevating themselves, “They have turned from the holy commandment delivered to them.” 2 Peter 2:21 (AB)

Church signs

by John D Ramsey

Today, as I was driving to work I passed a church on the highway, and I smiled when I read their sign, “I AM WHO I AM.” This was God’s answer to Moses’ question, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?” Exodus 3:13 (NIV) I smiled because it is a message that people need to hear and it is simple enough to fit on a sign.

I am not a big fan of church signs. Some church signs attempt to be cute; others manage to be funny without trying. Some signs are heretical. I have never attended a church because of a sign, but I have known to stay away because of them.

I once sent my mother a mock photograph of a church sign from www.churchsigngenerator.com in which I had misspelled a couple words. She was mortified. She begged me to tell her the location of the church so she could phone them and insist that they correct their signage. I had to let her off the hook. Of course, the church sign generator imprints their URL on every photo, so she had enough information to detect the hoax.

I dislike church signs' limited space. Is it possible to convey the whole story when there is much to tell? I suppose the psychology of church signs appeals to human curiosity. Perhaps they cause some people to inquire for more information.

Faith is not a slogan, yet God’s truths are simultaneously complex and simple. While they are complex enough that men can spend their lives pondering God’s mysteries, they are also simple enough that a child can grasp them. Perhaps their simplicity is sublime. Perhaps I should rethink my prejudice against church signs. Today, I was encouraged to see the quote from Exodus 3 because it addressed an issue that has been on my mind.

In creation, God made man in His image, and since the fall of man, mankind has attempted to redefine God into the image of His creation. Yet God reminds us, “I AM WHO I AM.”

In the bawdy movie, “Talladega Nights, The Ballad of Ricky Bobby”, Will Farrell prays to “Dear Eight Pound, Six Ounce, Newborn Baby Jesus . . .” While Farrell’s portrayal is blasphemous, he is not too far beyond what Christians do every day when we delicately redefine who Jesus is.

The book of Judges devotes two of its twenty-one chapters to an account that illustrates man’s confusion about who God is. Before we glance at Judges, let us recall just two of the Ten Commandments from Exodus 20.

• You shall not make for yourself an idol . . .
• You shall not steal.

With these two commandments in mind, read the following few verses from Judges 17 and make your own judgment.

Now a man named Micah from the hill country of Ephraim said to his mother, “The eleven hundred shekels of silver that were taken from you and about which I heard you utter a curse—I have that silver with me; I took it.”

Then his mother said, “The LORD bless you, my son!”

When he returned the eleven hundred shekels of silver to his mother, she said, “I solemnly consecrate my silver to the LORD for my son to make a carved image and a cast idol. I will give it back to you.”

So he returned the silver to his mother, and she took two hundred shekels of silver and gave them to a silversmith, who made them into the image and the idol. And they were put in Micah's house.

Judges 17:1-4 (NIV)

Micah later hired a Levite to be a priest in his idolatrous shrine even though priests were to serve only at the Tabernacle or temple and only Levites descending from Aaron were entitled to be priests. Later raiders from the tribe of Dan stole both Micah’s priest and his idols. Micah objected, but he was outnumbered and he would not die for the sake of his idol. The tribe of Dan then continued to worship Micah’s idol until the time of the Babylonian captivity. Coincidentally, the tribe of Dan is excluded from the 144,000 from the twelve tribes Israel mentioned in Revelation 7. The tribe of Joseph (Manasseh was Joseph’s son) has a double portion of the total. I state this as correlation. If you can prove or disprove causation, please leave a comment.

I am confident that Micah and his mother rationalized their idols. Perhaps they thought the ban on idols was culturally relevant only to previous generations. Perhaps they did not consider Micah’s idol as equivalent the Baals that the pagans worshipped. Obviously, they thought that they had license to worship God as they saw fit without regard to God’s commands. Micah and his mother's idolatry became a stumbling block to countless other people. This is a warning that we should be cautious. God is who he is.

When I was a child, I remember receiving Sunday School literature that portrayed Jesus as a white man. When Lisa and I were first married, Lisa’s grandmother would not smoke in front of me because she thought that with my long bangs and my blue eyes, I looked like Jesus. Evidently, she had seen Sunday School literature similar to what I had known.

My parents once knew graphic artists who had been missionaries in Africa. Their artwork portrayed Jesus as a black man. When Lisa and I travelled to Mexico, we toured several churches that displayed wax or plaster sculptures portraying Jesus as a dead man. At Christmas, we display crèches portraying Jesus as a baby.

The missionaries rationalized their artwork by saying that portraying Jesus as a black man is no worse than portraying him as a white man. Yes, it is no worse; it is merely as bad. Some might rationalize all of these misrepresentations of Jesus as being culturally relevant, yet I wonder whether God would not simply call all of them idols.

Some idolatrous images of Jesus are not graphical or physical they are conceptual. I once complained about the legalism taught in Christian schools. I was told that the legalism was age-appropriate lies. Legalism is a type of idolatry because it masks the true character of God. Why would Christian schools protect students from discovering who Jesus is? What amount of deceit is “age appropriate”? Apparently, my teachers were uncomfortable with who Jesus is, and they took the opportunity to correct the record.

Nearly everyone will tolerate some Jesus depending upon what the meaning of Jesus is. Some Christian denominations encourage ambiguous vocabularies so as to envelope the widest consortium of those who will confess Jesus as their “personal Savior”. Yet it is not our ideas about who Jesus is that matter, rather it is the truth about who Jesus is that is important.

Who is Jesus?

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?”

They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Matthew 16:13-16 (NIV)

Many try to appropriate Jesus’ authority by saying that he built his church upon Peter and after Peter died they inherited his authority somehow. The language of the Greek proves this interpretation to be self-serving and absurd. Peter means pebble, but the rock upon which Jesus would build his church was an immovable stone. Compared to Peter's pebble, Jesus was building his church upon a geological feature! Yes, it was a play on words, but the antecedent of “this rock” is not Peter, but rather it was Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!” Paul confirms this saying, “No one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 3:11 (NIV) We need to emphasize here as well that Peter’s confession came by the revelation of the Son by the Father. Men are not allowed to define who Jesus is. If they redefine Jesus, if they substitute a false foundation for the true Rock of Ages, they do not worship Jesus Christ; they erect an idol.

Late in his life John wrote a letter to his “little children”, that is to the believers in the churches in which he had ministered. John begins the letter with an allusion to the first verses of his gospel account. John reminds the reader of what he had seen and heard. In chapter four, he begins a new theme asking those he loves to test the spirits,

Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

1 John 4:1-3

The heresy of Gnosticism was taking root in the later part of the first century. The Gnostics believed that Jesus was a spiritual apparition, not an actual man. Yet John knew better. He had seen and touched Jesus. He had stood at the base of the cross when Jesus was crucified. He had heard him cry out in agony. He had cared for Jesus’ mother (John 19:26, 27) for the remainder of Mary’s life. He knew the real Jesus.

John knew Jesus as a man, and he knew him as God. John had heard the words of John the Baptist proclaiming, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” John had witnessed many of Jesus’ miracles. John had seen Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. John was among the first to enter the empty tomb. He was perhaps the first to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Obviously, John’s words in 1 John 4 warned against the deception of the Gnostics, but his words encompass much more. When John calls his Jesus, “Jesus Christ”, he was calling him by both his name and his title: Jesus the Christ. The title Christ carries with it all the expectations of the Old Testament prophecies. The title Christ carries with it all the testimony of the Apostles: their Gospels and their letters. The title Christ carries with it all the words Jesus spoke including those he spoke about himself.

A heretic might be able to define a new Jesus, but John asked his beloved to test whether the Jesus that men proclaimed was actually the Christ.

Who did Jesus say that he was? In John chapter eight, Jesus told the Pharisees, “I tell you the truth; before Abraham was born, I AM.” John 8:58 (NIV) Jesus’ words echoed back to God’s declaration to Abraham, “I AM WHO I AM.” Jesus was boldly claiming to be Creator God. The Pharisees realized this and tried to kill Jesus in the temple courtyard.

John’s testimony about Jesus, indeed Jesus’ testimony about himself, is that he was both God and man. As God, he is the Creator of all things, and as a man he is the Judge of all men. Should we not confess him the Christ, the Son of the living God, before we stand before his judgment seat?

Near the conclusion of John’s Gospel he writes,

Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ,

the Son of God,

and that by believing you may have life in his name.

John 20:31, 31 (NIV)

I know the real Jesus. I want to know this Jesus better.

Hmm. How would that look on a church sign?